-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 192
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update dependency management workflow #3771
Conversation
@ltalirz I'm investigating the CI issues right now. |
Looks like all directly PR-related issues are resolved here. I'll wait for the postgres CI issue to be resolved upstream. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks a lot @csadorf !
CI tests are fixed now - I'm sure we can get this Pr through next week.
Until then one question from my side
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
thanks @csadorf - a few comments from my side.
Furthermore, I read AEP 002 in such a way that we should actually provide a working requirements.txt file, and I suggest we commit it to the aiida repository (perhaps something to discuss with @sphuber).
This will be important to ensure that we are still able to pip install aiida-core 1.1.0, say, in 2 years.
This should come with a CI test that installs aiida using the fixed requirements.txt
.
Note: This also highlights the limitation of the pip freeze
approach over others (like pipfile / ...), namely that there is no concept of the extra_requirements
, i.e. we have to decide which of them to include (if any).
Is it really necessary to vendor |
Of course not, but is there a strong reason against it? |
Well it adds a lot of code to the repository that also has to then be maintained as well. Is this just necessary for the build system? If so, why can't this just be a dependency? |
It's a dependency of the I'll just remove it since this appears to be an issue. |
8948662
to
060fde4
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #3771 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 77.16% 77.16%
========================================
Files 458 458
Lines 33770 33770
========================================
Hits 26058 26058
Misses 7712 7712
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
3d9bfb5
to
564ff22
Compare
To automatically trigger a review request from the DM for changes that modify files that are related to dependency specification.
To better reflect the broader intended scope.
All, but one of the dependencies (sqlalchemy-utils) are available via conda-forge and mixing channels is generally not advisable.
… script. - And remove equivalent function from validate_consistency script. - Update pre-commit-hooks to reflect change.
89a8b3e
to
0f0899a
Compare
The failing pre-commit jobs will be resolved with #3837 . |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks, there is one small typo that should be corrected.
Apart from that, just some minor left-over comments from my previous review
.github/workflows/test-install.yml
Outdated
- 'environment.yml' | ||
- 'requirements*.txt' | ||
- 'pyproject.toml' | ||
- '.github/workflows/test-install.sh' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- '.github/workflows/test-install.sh' | |
- '.github/workflows/test-install.yml' |
Since the environments only differ across python versions, not backends.
The recent update to Click (7.1) breaks our tests and this CI workflow, because the help output formatting was slightly changed. Until we have resolved other issues we should pin the Click version to 7.0.
1011093
to
51ecd99
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Alright, let's go!
@ltalirz I'll finalize and merge. 👍 |
This reverts commit 1bb8351.
@ltalirz I am very sorry, I still needed to remove the trigger for running all workflows on this branch. I did not realize that we had automatic dismissal of review approvals enabled. It appears that unfortunately the latest run is having some (unrelated?) issues. They can probably be addressed by simply restarting the workflows. Please merge at your discretion; this is the proposed commit-message for the squashed merge:
|
@italirz looks like it's ready to merge. |
Ah, I see - was just the wrong default setting |
I think they're yellow, because I changed the expected tests. PR authors will need to either rebase or merge develop to trigger the execution of the new workflows. |
Initial pass at starting to update the dependency workflow.